JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18-1-1972 of Dr. Permanand Mishra, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur dismissing their revisions and confirming the order dated 21-1-1971 of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. 2. It appears that in the basic year land in dispute was recorded in the name of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10. The petitioners filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) claiming that they are the tenants in possession of the laud in dispute but the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10 were wrongly recorded in the basic year Their case was that the land in dispute was let out to their father by one Rupai and since then they are in possession of it. In the alternative they claimed that they have perfected sirdari rights on the land in dispute in view of the long standing possession. The objections were contended by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10 on the ground that they have purchased the land in dispute from Rupai and since then they have been in possession thereof. The petitioners have no right, title or interest over the land in dispute. It was further asserted that when the land in dispute was released in favour of the petitioners under Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings they filed suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court which was decreed and they were also put into possession of the land in execution of the decree. Although the decree of the trial Court was set aside in default but the petitioners could not recover back possession from them in view of the stay order granted by the revenue court in the Second Appeal filed by them with the result the effect of the earlier possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was wiped out. 3. The Consolidation Officer, Rampur who heard the objections allowed it on 24-4-1970 with the finding that the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was fully established from the statements of the petitioners Shyam Narain and Barsati, Extract of Khasra and irrigation slips The opposite parties Nos. 3. The Consolidation Officer, Rampur who heard the objections allowed it on 24-4-1970 with the finding that the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was fully established from the statements of the petitioners Shyam Narain and Barsati, Extract of Khasra and irrigation slips The opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10 filed appeal with the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation 21/1/1971 with the observation that so far possession of the petitioners prior to 19-3-1962 is concerned it was wiped out on their getting possession of the land in dispute in Execution of the decree of the trial court passed in their suit filed after the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent entries of possession in favour of the petitioners were not in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation the petitioners filed the revisions to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which were dismissed by a Common order on 18-1-1972 with the result the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 9 of the Act stood rejected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged before me that the courts below erred in holding that the effect of the earlier possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was wiped out because of the opposite parties' succeeding in getting possession of the land in execution of the decree of the Revenue Court on 19-3-1962. According to him, this possession was taken by the contesting opposite parties on the basis of a decree which was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner and a second appeal filed by them had abated under Section 5 of the Act and as such taking of possession by contesting opposite parties could not effect their ultimate rights in the land in dispute. In reply, the counsel for the opposite parties urged that the rights, if any of the petitioners were extinguished on their obtaining possession of the land in dispute in execution of the decree of the revenue court on 19-3-1962 and the fact that the second appeal was ultimately abated was of no legal consequence. 5. In reply, the counsel for the opposite parties urged that the rights, if any of the petitioners were extinguished on their obtaining possession of the land in dispute in execution of the decree of the revenue court on 19-3-1962 and the fact that the second appeal was ultimately abated was of no legal consequence. 5. As stated above the Consolidation Officer bad recorded finding about possession on statements of Shyam Narain, Barsati, Extracts of Khasra and irrigation slips but neither the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation have considered the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners while deciding the case against them. On the other hand, they decided the case against the petitioners on the ground that the effect of their possession over the land in dispute prior to 19-3-1962 was taken away in view of the opposite parties entering into possession of the land in dispute and that the entries of possession in favour of the petitioners after 19-3-1962 were not in accordance with law. In my opinion, the view taken by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation that merely because the contesting opposite parties succeeded in getting possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner in execution of the decree passed by the trial court in their suit the effect of the earlier possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was wiped out is not correct. The rights of the parties have to be determined as on the date when the contesting opposite parties filed suit for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute after the land in dispute was released in favour of the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Since the contesting opposite parties filed regular suit for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute within limitation from the date of the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the rights of the parties have to be determined when the land was attached under the said proceedings. In other words, the main question for determination would be as to whether the petitioners perfected some rights in the land in dispute prior to the starting of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Since none of the courts below have considered this aspect of the matter I have no option but to sent back the case for deciding afresh. 6. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18-1-1972 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, I make no order as to costs.